I struggle with...

[Speedwell]

now let's look at the text with a couple of the rules for comprehension in place...first vs. 3-6 and this is just a couple of the literary rules for comprehension....3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit,I just as you were called to one hope when you were called one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Now the highlighted key words should be enough to tell us that there is only one correct interpretation because if there was not, then there couldn't be just on faith, or one baptism, or one hope....now one more issue, why if there is only One God and Father of all would He contradict Himself with different interpretations?

That's a rhetorical question, not a conclusion. (see, I do know something about reading comprehension.) If there is only one correct interpretation, how do you know which one it is?

 

[razzelflabben]

That's a rhetorical question, not a conclusion. (see, I do know something about reading comprehension.) If there is only one correct interpretation, how do you know which one it is?

that is an easy question to answer...the answer is the HS whom scripture says is our teacher...shall I go on? See, it's not a rhetorical question at all from the standpoint of scripture...

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Off topic and flaming posts have been removed.

 

[Jimmy D]

that is how the early church saw it...Ephesians 4

Maybe they did, maybe not. It doesn't mean that there is only one interpretation though, which is why we have theistic evolution, apparent age theory, gap theory, YECism etc. We see it interpreted as being structured for poetic and thematic reasons rather than for historical narrative.

 

[razzelflabben]

Maybe they did, maybe not. It doesn't mean that there is only one interpretation though, which is why we have theistic evolution, apparent age theory, gap theory, YECism etc. We see it interpreted as being structured for poetic and thematic reasons rather than for historical narrative.

What I have repeatedly clearly been stating is that these other interpretations do NOT come into play in anything significant in scripture until we apply Man made Wisdom to what was originally God given Wisdom....iow's when we read into the text what is not there we get different interpretations, just like many on this thread are doing with various posts and posters. When we restrain ourselves to only reading for comprehension there is nothing of significance in scripture that so far I have been able to uncover that doesn't all end with the same conclusive meaning.

In fact, in another thread and this one I have challenged others to show me wrong and no one even attempted. Most of the time when the challenge is presented and anyone accepts it, they end up saying, "sure it says X but...." iow's more conformation that I am right on this matter.

Just to clarify, as this applies to the OP...I personally believe that when we read scripture in this case specifically Gen. for meaning aka comprehension it is supported by the evidence we have thus the theory of evolution and the creation account are equally supported by the evidence we have.

 

[Jimmy D]

What I have repeatedly clearly been stating is that these other interpretations do NOT come into play in anything significant in scripture until we apply Man made Wisdom to what was originally God given Wisdom.

iow's when we read into the text what is not there we get different interpretations, just like many on this thread are doing with various posts and posters. When we restrain ourselves to only reading for comprehension there is nothing of significance in scripture that so far I have been able to uncover that doesn't all end with the same conclusive meaning.

In fact, in another thread and this one I have challenged others to show me wrong and no one even attempted. Most of the time when the challenge is presented and anyone accepts it, they end up saying, "sure it says X but...." iow's more conformation that I am right on this matter.

Just to clarify, as this applies to the OP...I personally believe that when we read scripture in this case specifically Gen. for meaning aka comprehension it is supported by the evidence we have thus the theory of evolution and the creation account are equally supported by the evidence we have.

The creation account is not supported by scientific evidence.... unless you want to abandon your "comprehension rules" and start adding to the text or applying "man made wisdom".

I'll post this brief summation by Papias which sums up how scientific evidence conflicts with the creation account....


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

1

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

7

Thanks Papias!

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks Papias!

You're welcome.

Chronogenesis

 

[razzelflabben]

The creation account is not supported by scientific evidence.... unless you want to abandon your "comprehension rules" and start adding to the text or applying "man made wisdom".

well, you can try to prove me wrong if you want, in fact, I have been waiting for someone to provide evidence that proves me wrong and so far no one has been able to and I am one of the few that is open to changing my mind. I do fear that your attempts would be off topic and therefore a violation of forum rules. So here is my proposal for you...1. present the evidence without discussion, I will look it over and show you why it doesn't falsify what scripture says when read for comprehension....2. post your new evidence in a PM to me where we can actually discuss it...or 3. the most comprehensive option, start a thread that lays out what Gen. says when read for comprehension and then show evidence that falsifies each point one by one so that others can participate but if you choose this option do make sure that the prerequisite of reading for comprehension using common literary rules for comprehension is the only "version" we are talking about. All other versions are dismissed for the sake of the discussion...which is going to make this a difficult discussion to have in public since even you appear not to understand the premise of what I am saying...so let me give you an example

"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth and the earth was without form and void." What do we know from reading for comprehension that is testable on any level at all...well 1. we know that there is a creator. The math alone tells us that the probability of a creator is infinitely greater than the assumption of spontaneous existence then we add the science and even previously we talked about famous scientists that believe in a creator for this very reason...science does NOT support the notion that something can exist from nothing. This is evidence for a creator. So we have two supporting evidences right there. Now what evidence you want to present that would falsify that is beyond me but have fun finding it.

The second thing is that the particles that were used to create the heavens and earth existed for an indefinite period of time before they were pulled together to form the earth as we know it. This also is supported by the evidence of the "age" of the earth which as someone else in this thread already pointed out is flawed dating as it is, and even that flawed evidence supports what the first verse of Gen. tells us about our topic. How long those particles existed before taking form we simply do not know from reading the text and therefore is not something we can falsify or verify when it comes to what I am saying and purposing as my reason for believing that there is a creator.

Now previously when I tried to have this discussion with an theistic evolutionist, that person got stuck on trying to narrow down when "beginning" was. But here is the problem, the account when taken for what it says for comprehension is not specific enough to know, which really isn't a problem for what I am saying because as I repeatedly said, Gen. is NOT a scientific treatise but rather a polemic whose focus is on the assumption that there is a creator and that worshiping His creation is kind of stupid when you can worship and have a relationship with the Creator Himself. So really the only thing you can do to stop me from believing in a Creator is to falsify a creator...iow's you pretty much need to show that something does come from nothing and that the probability of spontaneous existence is greater than the probability of a Creator to falsify the account as written.

But it isn't that hard with me...cause I believe that even in the polemic there are testable things as I show above so you can try to tackle those if you want. Just know that from the standpoint of the claims I make to reading for comprehension the only way to falsify Gen. is evidence no Creator...but again, just so you don't miss what I am saying, I am willing to go beyond that so don't let that scare you away from trying. There are still things we can test for in the polemic you just can't prove the polemic wrong without falsifying a creator is all I am saying. Don't confuse what I am saying...I'm willing to have you falsify the testable, so give it your best shot. Just make sure you keep to the premise.

I'll post this brief summation by Papias which sums up how scientific evidence conflicts with the creation account....


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

hum...so you assumption is that water existed on earth before earth existed...how does that happen? How can anything exist on anything before it exists? Notice the text and what it says....vs. 6-8 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Now, remember we are reading for comprehension and nothing more or less so look what it says...the earth didn't have shape it does NOT say that there was no water or land...in fact, HCSB calls the separation sky...kjv calls it heaven...so remember reading for comprehension lets go to the lexicon....the definition for firmament which definition of a word is one of the common literary rules for comprehension we have is this
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   
2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   
   1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
      

heavens or sky is defined as...
heaven, heavens, sky

1. visible heavens, sky
   
   1. as abode of the stars
      
   2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
      
2. Heaven (as the abode of God)

So you see, this does nothing at all to falsify what scripture actually says...there is nothing at all in the text when we read for comprehension that suggests that land did not exist on the earth from the beginning. In fact, most people assume that God just "moved" the land to separate the water which makes me wonder why you thought this would falsify anything much less a reading for comprehension as I show you above does not say what you pretend it says.

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

light without sun..the first thing we see is that the word used is a different light in vs. 4 and vs. 14....so not the same thing iow's light and sun are not synonyms of one another...second, I saw scientific evidence some time ago that verifies that there is light apart from the sun...let me see if I can find it again, my time is short but it shouldn't be hard. Notice in this scientific description of light it is about photons and not the sun and the photons are separate from the sun...iow's notice where photons come from OLOGY
short version, light comes from atoms...so unless you want us to believe that atoms didn't exist when the biblical account of creation happened you missed the mark again. This wasn't the article I read but it basically concludes the same thing.

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

above I posted the definition for firmament...here it is again...
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   
   
2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   
   
   1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Now remember we are reading for comprehension not assumptions...so it can mean expanse (that is a base or support or something else...now consider what we know about the atmosphere....Wikipedia is enough to show that there is an expanse...Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia we call it layers of gases but it fits the definition...so far you have presented nothing but evidences for what I am saying, when will you challenge my assertions?

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

now I assume here that you are referring to the hierarchy of the fossil record. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is about as flimsy of evidence as it gets, so let me just say this....whereas the fossil record is the strongest evidence we have that could potentially falsify the Biblical creation when read for comprehension it is no stronger evidence than is prophecy as evidence for the scriptures being God breathed. IOWs if we are being honest we cannot deny there is evidence there but because of the very nature of the evidence neither alone makes a strong case. The problem of fossil record is several fold. Just for starters...1. the number of fossils we have to study compared to all life and even all fossils is incredibly small. 2. the sorting of fossils is not evidence for anything but our ability to sort things. In fact, we teach kids in elementary school that there are different ways to sort things. So no, not hard evidence of anything but our ability to sort. and 3. even the "age" of fossils and their location could be explained by other theories. whereas it is your best evidence against creation as per our premise it doesn't even come close to falsification. Best it can do is question 1. creation or 2. our sorting choice. Which is at best a 50/50....

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

well first you show no evidence which is getting very very boring but second if you tell me what evidence you want to present I can show you that it isn't what you think....I honestly am tired of doing your job for you here.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

see above...

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

how so? your post is sketchy enough it is hard to follow to start out with...but in Gen. 1. we see that land animals were created on day 6 as was man....in Gen. 2 we see...that God took His creation and "gave it life, purpose, and place to belong" nothing more or less. For example, if I plant a garden it exists before the seeds come up...If I make a cake, I can move it without recreating it...so I'm again not following what you think it different...

7

Thanks Papias!

please provide the evidence you claim falsifies the creation account as written in Gen. when read for comprehension...all this other stuff is beyond boring and is way way off topic.

 

[Jimmy D]

well, you can try to prove me wrong if you want, in fact, I have been waiting for someone to provide evidence that proves me wrong and so far no one has been able to and I am one of the few that is open to changing my mind. I do fear that your attempts would be off topic and therefore a violation of forum rules. So here is my proposal for you...1. present the evidence without discussion, I will look it over and show you why it doesn't falsify what scripture says when read for comprehension....2. post your new evidence in a PM to me where we can actually discuss it...or 3. the most comprehensive option, start a thread that lays out what Gen. says when read for comprehension and then show evidence that falsifies each point one by one so that others can participate but if you choose this option do make sure that the prerequisite of reading for comprehension using common literary rules for comprehension is the only "version" we are talking about. All other versions are dismissed for the sake of the discussion...which is going to make this a difficult discussion to have in public since even you appear not to understand the premise of what I am saying...so let me give you an example

"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth and the earth was without form and void." What do we know from reading for comprehension that is testable on any level at all...well 1. we know that there is a creator. The math alone tells us that the probability of a creator is infinitely greater than the assumption of spontaneous existence then we add the science and even previously we talked about famous scientists that believe in a creator for this very reason...science does NOT support the notion that something can exist from nothing. This is evidence for a creator. So we have two supporting evidences right there. Now what evidence you want to present that would falsify that is beyond me but have fun finding it.

The second thing is that the particles that were used to create the heavens and earth existed for an indefinite period of time before they were pulled together to form the earth as we know it. This also is supported by the evidence of the "age" of the earth which as someone else in this thread already pointed out is flawed dating as it is, and even that flawed evidence supports what the first verse of Gen. tells us about our topic. How long those particles existed before taking form we simply do not know from reading the text and therefore is not something we can falsify or verify when it comes to what I am saying and purposing as my reason for believing that there is a creator.

Now previously when I tried to have this discussion with an theistic evolutionist, that person got stuck on trying to narrow down when "beginning" was. But here is the problem, the account when taken for what it says for comprehension is not specific enough to know, which really isn't a problem for what I am saying because as I repeatedly said, Gen. is NOT a scientific treatise but rather a polemic whose focus is on the assumption that there is a creator and that worshiping His creation is kind of stupid when you can worship and have a relationship with the Creator Himself. So really the only thing you can do to stop me from believing in a Creator is to falsify a creator...iow's you pretty much need to show that something does come from nothing and that the probability of spontaneous existence is greater than the probability of a Creator to falsify the account as written.

But it isn't that hard with me...cause I believe that even in the polemic there are testable things as I show above so you can try to tackle those if you want. Just know that from the standpoint of the claims I make to reading for comprehension the only way to falsify Gen. is evidence no Creator...but again, just so you don't miss what I am saying, I am willing to go beyond that so don't let that scare you away from trying. There are still things we can test for in the polemic you just can't prove the polemic wrong without falsifying a creator is all I am saying. Don't confuse what I am saying...I'm willing to have you falsify the testable, so give it your best shot. Just make sure you keep to the premise. hum...so you assumption is that water existed on earth before earth existed...how does that happen? How can anything exist on anything before it exists? Notice the text and what it says....vs. 6-8 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Now, remember we are reading for comprehension and nothing more or less so look what it says...the earth didn't have shape it does NOT say that there was no water or land...in fact, HCSB calls the separation sky...kjv calls it heaven...so remember reading for comprehension lets go to the lexicon....the definition for firmament which definition of a word is one of the common literary rules for comprehension we have is this
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. expanse (flat as base, support)
2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

heavens or sky is defined as...
heaven, heavens, sky

1. visible heavens, sky
   1. as abode of the stars
   2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
2. Heaven (as the abode of God)

So you see, this does nothing at all to falsify what scripture actually says...there is nothing at all in the text when we read for comprehension that suggests that land did not exist on the earth from the beginning. In fact, most people assume that God just "moved" the land to separate the water which makes me wonder why you thought this would falsify anything much less a reading for comprehension as I show you above does not say what you pretend it says. light without sun..the first thing we see is that the word used is a different light in vs. 4 and vs. 14....so not the same thing iow's light and sun are not synonyms of one another...second, I saw scientific evidence some time ago that verifies that there is light apart from the sun...let me see if I can find it again, my time is short but it shouldn't be hard. Notice in this scientific description of light it is about photons and not the sun and the photons are separate from the sun...iow's notice where photons come from OLOGY
short version, light comes from atoms...so unless you want us to believe that atoms didn't exist when the biblical account of creation happened you missed the mark again. This wasn't the article I read but it basically concludes the same thing. above I posted the definition for firmament...here it is again...
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. 
   
   
   • expanse (flat as base, support)
   • firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
     
     1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Now remember we are reading for comprehension not assumptions...so it can mean expanse (that is a base or support or something else...now consider what we know about the atmosphere....Wikipedia is enough to show that there is an expanse...Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia we call it layers of gases but it fits the definition...so far you have presented nothing but evidences for what I am saying, when will you challenge my assertions? now I assume here that you are referring to the hierarchy of the fossil record. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is about as flimsy of evidence as it gets, so let me just say this....whereas the fossil record is the strongest evidence we have that could potentially falsify the Biblical creation when read for comprehension it is no stronger evidence than is prophecy as evidence for the scriptures being God breathed. IOWs if we are being honest we cannot deny there is evidence there but because of the very nature of the evidence neither alone makes a strong case. The problem of fossil record is several fold. Just for starters...1. the number of fossils we have to study compared to all life and even all fossils is incredibly small. 2. the sorting of fossils is not evidence for anything but our ability to sort things. In fact, we teach kids in elementary school that there are different ways to sort things. So no, not hard evidence of anything but our ability to sort. and 3. even the "age" of fossils and their location could be explained by other theories. whereas it is your best evidence against creation as per our premise it doesn't even come close to falsification. Best it can do is question 1. creation or 2. our sorting choice. Which is at best a 50/50.... well first you show no evidence which is getting very very boring but second if you tell me what evidence you want to present I can show you that it isn't what you think....I honestly am tired of doing your job for you here. see above... how so? your post is sketchy enough it is hard to follow to start out with...but in Gen. 1. we see that land animals were created on day 6 as was man....in Gen. 2 we see...that God took His creation and "gave it life, purpose, and place to belong" nothing more or less. For example, if I plant a garden it exists before the seeds come up...If I make a cake, I can move it without recreating it...so I'm again not following what you think it different...please provide the evidence you claim falsifies the creation account as written in Gen. when read for comprehension...all this other stuff is beyond boring and is way way off topic.

I'm on my phone so I can't give a fuller answer until after the weekend.

It seems that the thrust of your argument is that the truth Genesis is supported by scientific evidence as long as we disregard pretty much all of the modern scientific understanding of the history of the Earth - birds before land animals, plants before marine organisms, plants before the stars etc etc.

I thought that you said "science", not "pseudoscience", I'm disappointed, and your "mathematical" argument is even worse. I believe someone's just started a thread on it, I suggest you take a look and educate yourself on the subject.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm on my phone so I can't give a fuller answer until after the weekend.

It seems that the thrust of your argument is that the truth Genesis is supported by scientific evidence as long as we disregard pretty much all of the modern scientific understanding of the history of the Earth - birds before land animals, plants before marine organisms, plants before the stars etc etc.

now it was suggested that I should not assume that just because a poster repeatedly misrepresents me and ignores corrections and clarifications that they are not being intentional and yet here we are yet again with you claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I said, what I believe, and what I showed in my response to your posts. So how is it possible that you completely misunderstood repeated posts that were clear to many others as per my testing, multiple corrections, multiple clarifications, examples, and responses to your claims if you are not being intentional? Hum? How is that possible? and further, how is it possible that you would be able to claim the opposite meaning a meaning that is offensive to me and what I believe if you read my post for meaning and responded accordingly without being intentional in your response to flame me? I just don't get how that is possible. where I come from, saying the same thing a variety of different ways is usually enough, when you add clarifications, corrections, examples and direct responses complete with evidence from other sources that say the same thing, it requires intentional misunderstanding to get it wrong....yet I am told I should assume after all of that that your are innocent...not sure very many people would buy that argument but whatever....

My assertion is that when we read Gen. for comprehension without adding anything to it, and that comprehension is based on the common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school, that everything that is testable is verified by the science we have today. Of those things you assumed would falsify it and you presented I demonstrated to you that you were wrong. Notice that demonstrating you wrong does NOT equal "he truth Genesis is supported by scientific evidence as long as we disregard pretty much all of the modern scientific understanding of the history of the Earth" especially given that I demonstrated you wrong using the current science that we do understand.

In fact, the only thing I threw out was the fossil record and I explained why, which btw is the same understanding real science has and compared it to using the prophecy as the only evidence to support a falsification of a Living God...so let's say this another way. I personally think that there are several problems with using the prophecy of scripture as the "solid" evidence for "proof" of infallibility. For the same "type" of reasons I think that the fossil record is a poor evidence to try to convince me that there is no Creator when all the other evidence says that there is. Now if you want to offer something else feel free to do so but you boasted of it being easy and so far all you have offered is evidence that I am right.

I thought that you said "science", not "pseudoscience", I'm disappointed, and your "mathematical" argument is even worse. I believe someone's just started a thread on it, I suggest you take a look and educate yourself on the subject.

wow...so when I present scientific papers it's "pseudoscience" in your mind because it contradicts what you want me to say? How does that make any logical, rational sense? Seriously...I presented scientific research that showed you wrong and you called it "pseudoscience" because you didn't like the conclusion...notice that is the only reason you gave to dismiss the scientific research I posted in response, cause it doesn't fit what you wanted me to say...as to the math...all I am saying is that the mathematical equations for probability are astronomical and I have reviewed them many times over and I know the rhetoric for trying to dismiss them but again, you are asking me to dismiss mathematical equations of probability that are backed up by science because you don't like it and you give no other reason for me to do so. Remember, I backed up my claim by sighting that in science there is nothing to suggest that something can come from nothing. In fact, all claims that something can come from nothing are hypothetical circular arguments that are NOT evidenced in any way...so in order to cast doubt on what I am saying you need to do two things, 1. give me more than "cause I say so" as a rebuttal and 2. show science that evidences the science I posted to be obsolete...which you have continually refused to do...

 

[Speedwell]

Remember, I backed up my claim by sighting that in science there is nothing to suggest that something can come from nothing. In fact, all claims that something can come from nothing are hypothetical circular arguments that are NOT evidenced in any way...so in order to cast doubt on what I am saying you need to do two things, 1. give me more than "cause I say so" as a rebuttal and 2. show science that evidences the science I posted to be obsolete...which you have continually refused to do...

Who is suggesting that somethingcan come from nothing?

 

[razzelflabben]

Who is suggesting that somethingcan come from nothing?

the other poster, you know, Jimmy D used the excuse that I was not looking at science in response to my claim that I believe in a Creator because of the probability mathematics which are further supported by the scientific understanding that something does NOT come from nothing. So either he was misrepresenting me which I was told to assume was not going on, or he was arguing that something can come from nothing from a scientific standpoint...please follow the discussion if you wish to post something meaningful...it all boils down to me assuming there was not an intentional misrepresentation and what that would mean to the discussion. In my version, the science backs up the math they are NOT separate from one another therefore any response that is addressing what I said and not a reinvention thereof includes both in the response or shows why or how they do Not back each other up. Since jimmy D did not show or even attempt to show how they didn't support one another we can only assume that he was misrepresenting me or he assumes that something can come from nothing in which case he needs to defend his assertion with actual scientific evidence. which is what I am asking him to do....it's really up to him, he either backs up his assumptions as per responding to my comments and claims or 2. he confesses to be intentionally misrepresenting me which would get him reported for flaming...not hard math.

 

[Jimmy D]

now it was suggested that I should not assume that just because a poster repeatedly misrepresents me and ignores corrections and clarifications that they are not being intentional and yet here we are yet again with you claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I said, what I believe, and what I showed in my response to your posts. So how is it possible that you completely misunderstood repeated posts that were clear to many others as per my testing, multiple corrections, multiple clarifications, examples, and responses to your claims if you are not being intentional? Hum? How is that possible? and further, how is it possible that you would be able to claim the opposite meaning a meaning that is offensive to me and what I believe if you read my post for meaning and responded accordingly without being intentional in your response to flame me? I just don't get how that is possible. where I come from, saying the same thing a variety of different ways is usually enough, when you add clarifications, corrections, examples and direct responses complete with evidence from other sources that say the same thing, it requires intentional misunderstanding to get it wrong....yet I am told I should assume after all of that that your are innocent...not sure very many people would buy that argument but whatever....

My assertion is that when we read Gen. for comprehension without adding anything to it, and that comprehension is based on the common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school, that everything that is testable is verified by the science we have today. Of those things you assumed would falsify it and you presented I demonstrated to you that you were wrong. Notice that demonstrating you wrong does NOT equal "he truth Genesis is supported by scientific evidence as long as we disregard pretty much all of the modern scientific understanding of the history of the Earth" especially given that I demonstrated you wrong using the current science that we do understand.

In fact, the only thing I threw out was the fossil record and I explained why, which btw is the same understanding real science has and compared it to using the prophecy as the only evidence to support a falsification of a Living God...so let's say this another way. I personally think that there are several problems with using the prophecy of scripture as the "solid" evidence for "proof" of infallibility. For the same "type" of reasons I think that the fossil record is a poor evidence to try to convince me that there is no Creator when all the other evidence says that there is. Now if you want to offer something else feel free to do so but you boasted of it being easy and so far all you have offered is evidence that I am right. wow...so when I present scientific papers it's "pseudoscience" in your mind because it contradicts what you want me to say? How does that make any logical, rational sense? Seriously...I presented scientific research that showed you wrong and you called it "pseudoscience" because you didn't like the conclusion...notice that is the only reason you gave to dismiss the scientific research I posted in response, cause it doesn't fit what you wanted me to say...as to the math...all I am saying is that the mathematical equations for probability are astronomical and I have reviewed them many times over and I know the rhetoric for trying to dismiss them but again, you are asking me to dismiss mathematical equations of probability that are backed up by science because you don't like it and you give no other reason for me to do so. Remember, I backed up my claim by sighting that in science there is nothing to suggest that something can come from nothing. In fact, all claims that something can come from nothing are hypothetical circular arguments that are NOT evidenced in any way...so in order to cast doubt on what I am saying you need to do two things, 1. give me more than "cause I say so" as a rebuttal and 2. show science that evidences the science I posted to be obsolete...which you have continually refused to do...

There were no scientific papers in your response. No one thinks nothing came from nothing. You have shown no mathematical calculations. You have not demonstrated that our understanding of the fossil record is wrong.

I expected more to be honest.

 

[Jimmy D]

the other poster, you know, Jimmy D used the excuse that I was not looking at science in response to my claim that I believe in a Creator because of the probability mathematics which are further supported by the scientific understanding that something does NOT come from nothing

I don't think, neither did I say "something came from nothing". I believe it's an inane creationist straw man. Please don't misrepresent me.

 

[razzelflabben]

There were no scientific papers in your response. No one thinks nothing came from nothing. You have shown no mathematical calculations. You have not demonstrated that our understanding of the fossil record is wrong.

I expected more to be honest.

lol reread it...now you are right that I did not provide the calculations if you want me to I will....just figured we all already saw them so I was assuming you didn't need them.

As to scientific papers, yes there were some

As to the fossil record, don't know what you would want me to provide that would be equivalent to someone claiming, I don't accept the prophecy because they are hard to understand thus hard to test and I say "demonstrate that our understanding of the prophecy is wrong"...I mean I know I am not suppose to use words like insane, stupid, crazy, etc but I don't know a better word to put on such an argument...nothing in the claim suggests there is something I can demonstrate but rather that I don't accept it because of the very nature of the evidence...Do you want evidence of the nature of the evidence?

Just for the record, our son is currently looking into deep study on light. As in notebooks and notebooks of advanced calculations and since you tried to question my response I asked him to explain what I was missing. His reaction was unfavorable for your response and positive to mine as per the scientific works I presented that backed up my claims...oh wait, are you confusing scientific papers and works and trying to play a semantic game with me? that might explain your response either way, your still wrong according to the science.

 

[Speedwell]

lol reread it...now you are right that I did not provide the calculations if you want me to I will....just figured we all already saw them so I was assuming you didn't need them.

As to scientific papers, yes there were some

As to the fossil record, don't know what you would want me to provide that would be equivalent to someone claiming, I don't accept the prophecy because they are hard to understand thus hard to test and I say "demonstrate that our understanding of the prophecy is wrong"...I mean I know I am not suppose to use words like insane, stupid, crazy, etc but I don't know a better word to put on such an argument...nothing in the claim suggests there is something I can demonstrate but rather that I don't accept it because of the very nature of the evidence...Do you want evidence of the nature of the evidence?

Just for the record, our son is currently looking into deep study on light. As in notebooks and notebooks of advanced calculations and since you tried to question my response I asked him to explain what I was missing. His reaction was unfavorable for your response and positive to mine as per the scientific works I presented that backed up my claims...oh wait, are you confusing scientific papers and works and trying to play a semantic game with me? that might explain your response either way, your still wrong according to the science.

Why are we to take your son as an authority on anything?

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think, neither did I say "something came from nothing". I believe it's an inane creationist straw man. Please don't misrepresent me.

Huh? How did I misrepresent you..you responded to my claim that the mathematics is supported by the science that something cannot come from nothing and you disagreed with me...if you disagree with me when I say I agree with the science that something cannot come from nothing then the only possible is that you believe something can come from nothing which flies in the face of science. so either you started your response by misrepresenting me which as I said I was told to assume that was not true, or you believe something comes from nothing which means you do not agree with science which I have a problem with. I mean there are only two options here...you either agree that the science backs up that something does not come from nothing in which you would agree with me....or your disagree with me as you claimed to be doing and thus believe that something comes from nothing. No misrepresentation just taking you at your word....

 

[razzelflabben]

Why are we to take your son as an authority on anything?

Why ask me that question? I presented scientific evidence for you to take as authority, which is the point of presenting scientific evidence. I mentioned my son because he backed up my understanding of the science as per his deep and very recent study of light....how could you possible not understand that? Why would I post science as the evidence if I expected you to take my son as authority? If I wanted to use my son as authority I would have asked him to talk to you in depth about light. Instead what I did was present science...which I accept as an authority but apparently some of you all just give lip service to accepting it as an authority on anything if your responses are to be believed and accepted at face value.

 

[Speedwell]

Huh? How did I misrepresent you..you responded to my claim that the mathematics is supported by the science that something cannot come from nothing and you disagreed with me...if you disagree with me when I say I agree with the science that something cannot come from nothing then the only possible is that you believe something can come from nothing which flies in the face of science. so either you started your response by misrepresenting me which as I said I was told to assume that was not true, or you believe something comes from nothing which means you do not agree with science which I have a problem with. I mean there are only two options here...you either agree that the science backs up that something does not come from nothing in which you would agree with me....or your disagree with me as you claimed to be doing and thus believe that something comes from nothing. No misrepresentation just taking you at your word....

Scientific evidence of what? That something cannot come from nothing? Nobody here disputes it. I'm not sure what mathematics you are referring to. If it is from the other thread, the "probabilities" thread, then you are mistaken. Those calculations have been shown to bebased on faulty assumptions and have nothing to do with the creation of the universe in any case.

 

[Jimmy D]

Huh? How did I misrepresent you..you responded to my claim that the mathematics is supported by the science that something cannot come from nothing and you disagreed with me...if you disagree with me when I say I agree with the science that something cannot come from nothing then the only possible is that you believe something can come from nothing which flies in the face of science. so either you started your response by misrepresenting me which as I said I was told to assume that was not true, or you believe something comes from nothing which means you do not agree with science which I have a problem with. I mean there are only two options here...you either agree that the science backs up that something does not come from nothing in which you would agree with me....or your disagree with me as you claimed to be doing and thus believe that something comes from nothing. No misrepresentation just taking you at your word....

Ok, so we're clear, no one thinks something comes from nothing.